Chapter 1 - The Role of the Holy Spirit in Hermeneutics:

An Overview of the Present Situation

The aim of this first chapter is to review two of the major areas
of understanding of the role of the Holy Spirit in the hermeneutical process.
The first is Pentecostalism. There is a growing body of literature that will be
helpful in our task. The second is Conservative Evangelical approaches. As we
shall see, the material here is much less. The choice of these is based on the
notion that Charismatic Hermeneutics lies somewhere between the these two
approaches. Many, but certainly not all Charismatics have emerged from
conservative evangelical traditions. Although Charismatics have many
similarities with Pentecostalism, there are also notable differences. Hence
that fact that Charismatics have often been referred to as
'Neo-Pentecostals'. The hope is that by examining both Pentecostalism
and Evangelical Conservatism, we might get a clearer understanding of where
Charismatic Hermeneutics might lie.

Pentecostal[1] approaches to biblical
interpretation are playing an increasingly important role in the contemporary
hermeneutical debate. Modern approaches to hermeneutics are introducing more
subjective elements into the task of biblical interpretation.[2] Post-modernistic ideas - however cumbersome and
ill-defined - have raised the awareness of a more subjective element to human
life, and in particular, the search for meaning from language. It has been
argued that Pentecostal approaches to hermeneutics are well placed to deal with
this new epistemological paradigm.[3] This particular
debate will surface later, but for the moment we want to acknowledge that
Pentecostal approaches to biblical hermeneutics are in a better position to
accept the possibility of a subjective and more experiential dimension in
hermeneutics.

This position is due primarily to Pentecostalism's
willingness to talk freely of an experiential, dynamic and existential (that is
to say, 'in the present') aspect to the work of the Spirit. There is
an explicit supernatural worldview, that, although certainly not unique to
Pentecostalism, is nevertheless given a particularly high profile by
Pentecostals generally. This supernatural worldview is seen as being directly
descended from the supernatural worldview that is described in the Bible.
"Thus the supernatural, experiential worldview of Scripture is our
worldview; that is, an understanding of God who is above and beyond creation
yet in and among his people and testified to by signs and wonders".[4] The extent to which this is an over-generalisation is
beyond the scope of our present discussion, but few would deny that one of
Pentecostalism's defining factors is the emphasis that the supernatural.
It is this dimension that is of most interest to our discussion. Within
Pentecostalism, there is a clear willingness to acknowledge that there is an
active role for the Holy Spirit in hermeneutics which goes beyond other more
conservative approaches.

For some, Pentecostal approaches to the hermeneutical task not
only place a high emphasis on the role of the Holy Spirit, but would regard any
form of valid hermeneutics as impossible apart from a work of the Holy Spirit -
an epistemology that is blatantly pneumatological. For Arrington,
"Scripture given by the Holy Spirit must be mediated interpretively by the
Holy Spirit. The illumination of the interpreter by the Holy Spirit is a vital
part in elucidating the contemporary meaning of the biblical text."[5]

However, we already have a point of difficulty. Elsewhere,
Arrington writes of the need for the Holy Spirit in helping the interpreter
"...to come to the fullest comprehension of the significance of the
text."[6] Arrington is suggesting that there is
a level of interpretation only open to a spiritually-enlightened group. If
Arrington is simply saying that all believers, by virtue of the fact that all
have received the Holy Spirit no matter what their denominational affiliation
or experience of the Spirit, have access to a level of interpretation that is
unavailable to the unbeliever, then there is, less cause for concern. Maybe it
is only that Pentecostals acknowledge this particular dimension more easily. On
the other hand, however, if Arrington is suggesting that Pentecostals, by
nature of their implicit understanding of the work of the Holy Spirit have
access to a level of understanding, a 'fuller comprehension', that is
beyond those without this dimension, then there is much more ground for serious
concern.

Archer similarly writes along these lines. "Pentecostals have
a distinct way of reading the Scriptures. They read them 'through Lukan
eyes especially with the lenses provided by the book of
Acts'".[7] This Lukan perspective demands
that believers be baptised in the Holy Spirit as a second experience to
conversion.[8] And one presumes that it is this
perspective that makes a Pentecostal reading unique. So without this
'Pentecostal perspective' the 'non-Pentecostal' believer,
by definition, lacks something that is available to Pentecostal readers. Is
there a unique Pentecostal understanding to the role of the Holy Spirit?

John McKay[9] continues this line of
argument with what he calls 'prophetic Christianity'.[10] He argues that there are only two ways to study the
Scriptures: "One is objective and analytical, interesting in itself, but
imparting little or nothing of the life of God to the student. The
other...draws us to God and gives life".[11]
McKay is severely critical of the approach to the Bible which he feels is
implicit in academic circles and is concerned that the 'charismatic
movement' is in danger of losing its distinctive dimension through
dialogue with academia.[12] He argues that there is
a clear tension between that which is done within the academy, and that which
is done (or has been experienced) by those who have been baptised in the Holy
Spirit. McKay having first worked within the academy and then subsequently
being baptised in the Holy Spirit is very aware of the tension that has now
resulted between what he used to do and what he has now come to experience.
"The message seems clear enough: the Spirit enables us to read the Bible
with some new clarity that could not be possible without his aid".[13]

McKay is keen to polarise the debate believing that there are
rational approaches to the Bible and spiritual approaches.[14] The former requires no faith and is present throughout
Biblical studies departments and Theological colleges,[15] the latter requires faith and moves in the reality of
the Holy Spirit's guiding. McKay recounts his own experiences where, after
many years of academic scholarship and 'frustration', he received the
baptism in the Holy Spirit.

...[T]he more I pursued this quite limited
objective [the essential message of the Bible through academic methods] the
more aware I became of the confused complexity of the theological debate, and
proportionately I despaired of scholarship's ever discovering a
solution.

But after the baptism in the Spirit:

"It could no longer be my aim to resolve
the riddle of the Word of God; the Holy Spirit had done that for me. My studies
had to manifestly change focus, from my search for meaning to clarification of
my new understanding".[16]

For McKay, there is no understanding apart from the Holy Spirit.
Rational categories cannot provide that epistemological dimension that belongs
to the Spirit and is essential to biblical hermeneutics. McKay concludes by
stating that:

It is not that Charismatics have ceased to think
theologically; quite the contrary. However their theological perspective has
changed, and changed so radically that they find their views no longer fit with
those of the majority of today's biblical theologians, and furthermore
that they fail to find much satisfaction from participating in their debates.
It is my convinced opinion that a charismatic's view of the Bible must be
different from everyone else's, be they fundamentalists, conservatives,
liberals, radicals or whatever.[17]

It is clear that McKay is claiming a dimension of biblical
interpretation that is only open to those who accept his understanding of the
work of the Spirit in the believer. For McKay, there is a unique hermeneutic
that is not available to all believers and requires the baptism of the Spirit.
This is unfortunate since much of what McKay is arguing for genuinely
challenges dry and lifeless academic approaches. He is calling for a
recognition of the fact that Bible reading has an explicitly spiritual
dimension and that the end of the hermeneutical task is not the pursuit of more
knowledge but life in the Spirit and relationship with God. However, he has
chosen an either/or approach. He has clearly separated the insights gained from
rational means and the insights that can be gained from 'spiritual'
means suggesting the latter is superior. It seems excessive to so easily
dismiss the insights from academic approaches or the approaches of other
traditions with the arrogant claim that they have little, if anything, to
offer.

Anderson, writing as a Pentecostal, recognises the problem of this
apparent elitism.[18] Anderson argues that a
Pentecostal understanding of the role of the Holy Spirit does not differ
substantially from wider evangelical opinion. Anderson clearly states that,
"A Pentecostal Hermeneutic is not special insight unavailable to
others".[19] As with all conservative thinking,
"The Holy Spirit must illuminate the understanding of the
interpreter",[20] but there is no unique
Pentecostal perspective.

Anderson then goes on to acknowledge that there are two schools of
thought within evangelicalism as to what exactly it is that the Holy Spirit
does. Either the Holy Spirit enables the human mind to intellectually grasp the revelation of scripture, or alternatively, the human mind is quite
capable of understanding the meaning of the scriptures without the aid of the
Holy Spirit, it is rather the will of the one reading that is the object
of the Holy Spirit's action.[21] "[The]
Holy Spirit has changed the will of the one, but the other remains hostile
toward God".[22] So, is it simply a question of
either intellect or will as the object of the Spirit's action? For
Anderson, Pentecostals would align themselves with the second of these views.
The Holy Spirit works on the will of the reader and not their mind. So,
Anderson would, therefore, find it helpful to differentiate between the meaning
of a text and the significance of a text.

"I distinguish then between the meaning of
a word (definition, understanding the concept, etc.), and the meaningfulness of
it (significance, emotional impact, etc.). It takes the work of the Holy
Spirit, making a person alive to God, to make the Bible meaningful in the
second sense".[23]

So is the role of the Spirit in hermeneutics for Pentecostals
about the mind, or the will, or some other part of the hermeneutical task?

Some see the role of the Holy Spirit as more contextual and
experiential. The Holy Spirit is active in the present experience of the
believer. So the Holy Spirit, therefore, forms the common context for Bible
reading to take place. The Bible was originally written under the supervision
of the Spirit and the Bible is, therefore, to be understood under the
supervision of the Spirit. But rather than the Spirit providing the reader with
the correct answers to questions concerning the original meaning of the text
(life would be so much simpler if this were the case), the Spirit instead
provides the bridge by which the ancient text becomes relevant in the present
context of the believer. There has to be a link between the written scriptures
and the believer and it is the Holy Spirit that provides that link.[24]
It is the application of the text to the present experience of the
believer that is the work of the Holy Spirit. There is not simply
understanding, but rather understanding that is relevant. A dialogue is
established between the text and the reader's experience that is
supervised by the Holy Spirit.[25]

Archer cites John Christopher Thomas's attempt to deduce a
paradigm for a holistic Pentecostal hermeneutic from the situation described in
Acts 15.[26] Thomas attempts to argue that there is
a clear relationship between the experience of believers, the Scriptures, and
the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit caused the believers to reapply the teaching
of Scripture into their present context. So, for Archer, "Pentecostals
believe that God speaks today and when God speaks, God has more to say than
just scripture, yet it will be scripturally sound".[27]

This approach would certainly raise concerns within more
conservative evangelical circles. Archer (via the work of Thomas) is suggesting
that scripture should be seen in more fluid terms. The relationship between
that which is written and that which is being experienced by the believer is
changeable and dynamic. And this 'fluidity' is supervised by the Holy
Spirit. Thomas attempts to adopt this approach when considering the role of
women in church.[28] Thomas begins by provocatively
noting that "...modern theological scholarship...both liberal and
conservative...[has] little or no appreciation for the work of the Holy Spirit
in interpretation." And he goes onto point out that "such a
hermeneutical component is of no little interest to Pentecostal
scholars".[29] Drawing on the account in Acts
15, he notes the role played by the experience of the believers and the place
and room given to the Holy Spirit that precedes any consideration of the
scriptures.[30] "[T]he methodology revealed in
Acts 15 is far removed from the historical-grammatical approach where one moves
from text to context. On this occasion, the interpreters moved from their
context to the biblical text".[31] More
important is the emphasis that is placed on the role of the Spirit in the
process. "Such explicit dependence upon the Spirit in the interpretative
process clearly goes far beyond the rather tame claims regarding
'illumination' which many conservatives (and Pentecostals) have often
made regarding the Spirit's role in interpretation".[32]

Thomas is clearly dissatisfied with much of the contemporary
discussion regarding the role of the Spirit in interpretation.. For Thomas,
there is a clear role for the Spirit which is tangible and necessary for the
believing community to function effectively. Thomas is also aware of the
subjective element that is obvious when such a path is chosen. He has placed
controls in the paradigm that he is proposing that would help to limit the
range of interpretations,[33] but he refuses to
stifle the Spirit's role through mere 'academic lip service'.
And this is refreshing and challenging, if a little dangerous.

The traditional emphasis within evangelical circles on the
Historical-critical method is, then, seen as inadequate. It allows the reader
to gain some access to the original meaning of the text but is of little
benefit in helping the believer gain meaning for the present.[34] It is this 'present meaning' that is, for
Arrington, 'pneumatic interpretation'.[35]
For Archer, "The traditional evangelical historical-critical methods would
be utilised in the hermeneutic process but would not monopolise the process.
Contemporary Christian experience must also be included in the hermeneutical
process".[36] Both Anderson and Archer are
seeking some synthesis between traditional evangelical methods and modern
reader-centred approaches.

Robert Menzies is equally less comfortable with a hermeneutic that
gives too much space to more subjective reader-centred approaches. He has been
particularly critical of Cargal's attempt to argue that Pentecostalism is
well-placed to engage with the post-modern perspective.[37] Menzies happily adopts a more traditional evangelical
approach to hermeneutics by reasserting the importance of the historicity of
the text (and, therefore, the place for historical-critical methods) for all
evangelicals.[38] This is in response to
Cargal's apparent ahistorical approach. Menzies states: "...Cargal is
probably right: Pentecostalism, because of its pragmatic and experiential
focus, may easily be attracted to the ahistorical vision inherent in
post-modern thought. This however is a weakness, not a strength".[39] Menzies' concern with Cargal's approach is
the threat of the diminishing the role of the text by more reader-centred
approaches. Menzies would want to hold onto rational categories for
control.

These [reader-centred] approaches strike me as
the logical successors of a sterile biblical criticism which has so emasculated
the text that it had nothing of significance to communicate. At some point, the
question had to be asked: why bother with all this? The solution to this
dilemma was obvious: if significance cannot be found in the meaning of the
text, then it must be imported from outside the text.[40]

Menzies supports the need for critical methods in the search for
meaning, and states that the future for Pentecostalism lies not with the
retention of its own distinctives but instead, an assimilation with evangelical
methods while seeking to bring Pentecostal distinctives of Spirit baptism and
an experiential focus to bear in the ongoing debate.[41]

Menzies is harsh on Cargal's analysis. Cargal has brought a
clear challenge that is not so much to do with questions of historicity, but
rather more to do with modernist presuppositions about the nature of truth, the
place of rational categories and the potential for pushing aside the
possibility of a transcendent dimension that seems central to Christian
experience. For Cargal, the central presupposition of modernism is that
"...reality is objectively knowable, and, by implication, only that which
is objectively knowable is real...What both Fundamentalists and Modernists have
in common is a philosophical presupposition that only what is historically and
objectively true is meaningful".[42] Cargal is
happy to acknowledge that reason and rationalism can tell us some things, but
they cannot tell us everything,[43] "I want to
emphasise that this post-modern vision of reality reopens the possibility of
the transcendent virtually closed by modernity".[44] Pentecostal presuppositions about a supernatural and
transcendent reality are not only a point of contact with a post-modern
worldview, but equally challenge modernist presuppositions that are so dominant
within traditional evangelical critical methods. Cargal is calling for the
acknowledgement that there is more to hermeneutics than the historical-critical
method, and the scope of enquiry ought to include the insight of experience and
the possibility of contextual readings, and, most importantly, the reality of a
transcendent dimension outside of rational, modernistic categories.

It is difficult to see, if viewed sympathetically, that Cargal is
asserting anything substantially different from Menzies. Menzies is excessive
in describing Cargal's work as "ultimately disturbing".[45] Both seem to be seeking a synthesis of objective and
subjective approaches, if only with different emphases. The major concern with
Cargal's argument is where he would leave the final point of hermeneutical
control: with the subjective categories found in the reader or the objective
categories based in the text or in historical-critical methods. Menzies is
right to raise this concern and evangelicalism as a whole would sit more
comfortably with that which is known and objective taking precedence over that
which is less clear and subjective. It is the post-modern bandwagon of rampant
subjectivism that we should jump off and not the possibility of the Christian
experience of the transcendent.

Arden Autry points us in a different direction when considering
the role of the Holy Spirit in hermeneutics.[46] He
states that a good hermeneutic cannot be ahistorical.[47] However, rather than shaping the mind or the will, or
contextualising the reading for the present experience of the reader, the Holy
Spirit's role is to bring the reader into an encounter with God. Citing
the work of Paul Ricoeur, Autry states that "...the true aim of
Scripture...is not simply accurate reading of the author's intention but
knowledge of God".[48] There is a transcendent
reality that can be encountered and should be expected through reading the
biblical text. It is this faith dimension that separates the unbelieving reader
from the believing reader. "What will be lacking for the non-believer is
not understanding (in the ordinary sense) but awareness of relationship to
God...Lacking this awareness of relationship, one lacks the context in which
the Bible's message can work to achieve its purpose - knowledge of
God".[49] Autry writes of both correct
reading - the use of critical methods objectively to control the
reader's conclusions; and creative readings which are context
specific and may step outside that which would have been intended by the
original author. "Nevertheless, the language of the Bible does seem to
have a dynamic quality not always exhausted by the author's original
intention".[50] Autry imaginatively concludes
by stating: "The 'correct' reading serves the
'creative'; and the 'creative' measures itself by the
'correct'".[51]

If taken seriously, this view of the role of the Holy Spirit
challenges what is often assumed by biblical interpreters. Few evangelicals
would deny that part of the Spirit's role is to bring believers into a
relationship with and knowledge of God. This function for most is seen to be
predominately through prayer and Bible study. Questions about whether this is
the Spirit's primary role in hermeneutics - the knowledge of God - or
whether the Spirit's role is in relation to the mind or the will or the
reader's context need to placed to one side for now. The clear challenge
that is being brought by Cargal, Thomas, McKay, Autry and others is that this
particular aspect of the Spirit cannot be, on the one hand, freely
acknowledged, and yet, on the other hand, restricted to human, rational and
objective categories. The Spirit can clearly use rational means to communicate
and bring people into an encounter with God. But this should not be seen as the
only level of action.

For many Pentecostals, the Holy Spirit is active in a supernatural
dimension and is quite capable of acting in ways that break the rules of more
rational approaches and still bring people into a deeper knowledge of God.
Pentecostal approaches to hermeneutics are well placed to accept this
dimension. The extent to which others within Pentecostalism are willing to
actively recognise this element is debatable. It seems clear that there are
those within Pentecostalism who are little different in their methods from more
conservative scholars and feel just as uneasy with this subjective element.
However, there is an increasingly competent voice that is willing to
acknowledge a more subjective and active role for the Spirit yet is also happy
to recognise the role played by scholarship and more traditional approaches.
For Pentecostalism, synthesis rather than polarisation and, therefore,
alienation, seems the better path to choose. They would all argue that
conservative scholarship certainly needs the insights that they bring.

We have already noted the paucity of material that exists within
conservative evangelical circles on this topic. One presumes that this is
either because it is assumed that all understand the role of the Spirit and,
therefore, little more need be said. Or alternatively, the lack may be due to
the fact that conservative understanding is that the Spirit has little to do
with the hermeneutical task; it is an essentially rational task. There is a
third option. The role of the Spirit is actually little understood by many
evangelicals and to seek a better understanding of what exactly the Spirit does
in hermeneutics raises the kind of questions that have already been looked at
within Pentecostal approaches. We enter a world where there is every likelihood
that subjectivism and personal experience have to be taken seriously and given
proper space. Neither of these elements have found conservative evangelicalism
a happy home, and so evangelicalism tends to steer clear happy to remain in its
detached rationally dominated hermeneutic. We shall briefly examine two authors
who have written on this subject from within conservative evangelicalism.

Daniel Fuller[52] argues that the
object of the Holy Spirit's action is the mind of the one reading
the biblical text. Basing his argument on 1 Corinthians 2:14 and, in
particular, the Greek word lambano, Fuller argues that "...apart
from the Holy Spirit, a person does not accept what the Bible teaches with
pleasure, willingness, and eagerness. In other words, the natural man does not welcome the things of the Spirit of God".[53] The meaning of the text, for Fuller, can be attained
through rational approaches, "...the Holy Spirit's role is to change
the heart of the interpreter, so that he loves the message that is conveyed by
nothing more than the historical-grammatical data".[54] The unregenerate reject the message of the Bible
because of its apparent foolishness and their utter sinfulness. "Precisely
because its message is so comprehensible and yet collides head-on with
people's deep-seated desires to exult in themselves, men reject it and
seek to justify this by regarding it as foolishness".[55]

Fuller's argument is disappointing. To base an entire
understanding of the work of the Holy Spirit in biblical interpretation on one
verse seems inadequate. Fee argues that Paul is stating here that there is not
just an issue of a willingness to receive the message, but the message itself
cannot be understood apart from the work of the Spirit, and so remains
foolish; rational categories are inadequate for understanding.[56] Also, to state that meaning can be found through
careful analysis of the historical-grammatical data raises interesting
questions about those believers who do not have access to the
historical-grammatical data for instance. Finally, the context for Paul's
discussion in 1 Corinthians appears to have more to do with the preaching of
the gospel to unbelievers rather than the understanding of the Bible by those
who read it.

John Frame, too, writes from a conservative perspective.[57] Frame adopts a similar understanding to Fuller as to
the nature of the Spirit's work in interpretation.

Every warranted confession of scripture... is a
rational confession, a sound inference from experience. But then what role
remains for the testimony of the Spirit? ...The work of the Spirit is to remove
those effects of sin, to overcome that resistance...He changes us to
acknowledge what is rationally warranted.[58]

For Frame, the Spirit does not provide us with anything that is
not rationally available nor does the Spirit enable us to transcend reason
altogether. Christianity is to be seen as a rational faith that comfortably
functions on a rational level: "there is no competition between the
rationality of the scriptures and the witness of the Spirit".[59] It is certainly true that God functions on a rational
level, few would deny this. The issue is whether God only functions on a
rational level? Frame is less than clear, happy to talk of God's rational
activity and yet also using terms like 'mystery' and
'intuition'. He also talks of the 'experience' of God
speaking through the scriptures. "[N]o experience offers a more profound
closeness with God".[60] Although firmly
rational in his approach he seems unwilling to completely close the door to the
subjective.

So where do we now find ourselves?

The two authors we have examined provide us with a very limited
base for assessing conservative evangelical views on the role of the Holy
Spirit in hermeneutics. However, the clear lack of information makes a more
comprehensive survey difficult. Combined with the survey that was undertaken in
the introduction, it does seem clear that contemporary evangelicalism, outside
of Pentecostal or Charismatic circles, wishes to distance itself from definite
ideas of a more tangible and subjective role for the Holy Spirit. Even more
text-centred and reader-centred approaches, while breaking away from
traditional evangelical approaches, still lack any study of the Spirit's
role. Instead there is a preference to remain firmly objective and rational
while not denying outright the 'possibility' of God, through the Holy
Spirit, acting outside of these categories. It is this intransigence and
'fuzziness' that frustrates those who look for a clearer subjective
role, wishing to break out of rational modernist approaches.

In the third chapter, we shall look more closely at the work of
Clark Pinnock. He is a conservative evangelical theologian who has attempted to
gain a greater understanding of the work of the Holy Spirit in hermeneutics.
His insights will help us to bridge the gap between Pentecostal and
conservative evangelical approaches.

It is not exactly easy to decide where we are at the end of this
first chapter. So-called Pentecostal ideas are varied. There has been more
written within this forum than most but there is little sense of a agreed
understanding. More conservative Pentecostals seem little different from their
non-Pentecostal conservative cousins. More experientially orientated writers
differ on their views on the role of scholarship and the place of authorial
intention. However, all the Pentecostal writers examined would still want to
distance themselves from the closed, dry rationalism that is so prevalent
elsewhere. Conservative evangelicalism is either silent on the matter or is
reluctant to journey far from its objective, rational categories. The
difficulty for non-Pentecostals is that that further investigation is not
taking place. And although Pentecostal insights are stimulating and
interesting, Pentecostal presuppositions about the work of the Spirit make the
task of assimilating their ideas into evangelical circles, even charismatic
circles, more difficult. There has to be further investigation beginning with a
different set of presuppositions. And so it is to the work of Mark Stibbe that
we now turn.

References

[1] For the purposes of
our discussion, 'Pentecostalism' shall refer to western, first world
approaches and will not deal with other 'versions' of Pentecostalism.
However, it is recognised that even within western, first world Pentecostalism
there is great variety and so we shall have to deal in broader
generalisations.

[2] This is especially
the case with Reader-Centred approaches and some hermeneutical approaches that
are emerging from the developing world, for instance from Liberation Theology
or Radical Theology.

[9] John McKay is not
writing as a Pentecostal scholar in the sense that he is part of a Pentecostal
denomination or an acknowledged Pentecostal leader. McKay's affiliations
are with Kingdom Faith Ministries in West Sussex. However, he has a very
definite understanding of the baptism in the Holy Spirit that is clearly
Pentecostal, and so we include his insights at this point. It would also be
fair top say that what McKay calls 'Charismatic understanding' would
not necessarily be broadly acknowledged by the wider Charismatic movement.
McKay represents a particular kind of Charismatic that is probably, on this
issue, Pentecostal.

[24] Archer,
'Pentecostal Hermeneutics', p.78. See also Arrington, 'The Use
of the Bible by Pentecostals', p.105. "The heart of the biblical text
remains ambiguous until it is illuminated by the Holy Spirit."